Something somebody said made some sense to me and I wanted to hold it up to
the light of the FT future...
In the world of wet navy of days of old, a Cruiser was just that. It had the
endurance and capabilities (crew accomodation, fuel, ammunition, etc) to
contemplate lengthy cruises. Frigates, Destroyers, and Corvettes much less so
(yes, they did cross the Atlantic, but they just weren't up to taking some of
the seas the bigger boats could handle nor could they manage some of the sorts
of things large ships could, such as squadron command, etc
without difficulty - they didn't have the space). And they weren't as
pointed out, really meant to go toe to toe with battlewagons from the van of
the main fleet.
Also, I don't know if it applies in the days of powered boating, but there are
formula for roughing out how many knots a sailboat should be able to make and
it relates to keel length (perhaps waterline length might be more appropos). A
150' sailboat is a *heck* of a lot faster across long distances than a 30'
boat. I wonder if, due to economy of scale principles, large ships like the
cruisers could outspeed destroyers? (Don't have the stats handy...). Probably
differing relative percentages of mass devoted to armour and ordinance play
into that consideration. But I'm betting that generally, over the longer
distance (not the sprint), a cruiser or a bigger vessel could outsteam a
smaller ship. Heck, recently I was in Hawaii and was shocked at how fast a CV
could disappear out over the horizon once it got up some steam.... fast. And
you'd want your cruisers to be able to outrun your BBs and other ships that
they might (with bad luck) run into on their long cruising missions.
So, where does this take us in the world of FT? Well... we're in space. That's
a good starting point. Obviously that imposes certain minimum restrictions on
how cramped/short
endurance a vessel can be. Even a DD has to be able to make hyper jumps and
support crew for a fairly lengthy time, self contained. But maybe a cruiser
has more of this? A cruiser might also be the size of ship that can actually
refuel from smaller tankers, unlike your big SDNs, which may need to travel
with dedicated fuel and ammo supplies in large colliers. (Depends on
background) Anyway, the point is your equivalent of a MTB or similar
short endurance combatant of small size would be non-FTL strikeboats or
fighters. Your DDs and such would look a bit more like a classic cruiser in
terms of capability and
self-sufficiency just because of the limitations imposed by the
environment of space.
This brings to mind another aspect of the campaign game which might trickle
down into ship
designs - allocating extra space for things like flag bridges for
squadron command or allocating additional space for crew comfort and supplies
and fuel to allow longer cruising operations. These are things which should
show up as a few cargo spaces or the
like on long-distance commerce or penetration raiders, but we don't have
any designs that look this way right now officially.
But if you enjoy the idea of your FT sort of looking a bit like naval conflict
between 1900 and 1940, then having the BBs and SDNs doing a lot of sailing
around in squadrons and staying home a fair bit (unless they have an objective
in being out) while having cruisers zip around too and fro and DDs act as
escorts when and where their reduced legs and endurance aren't an issue would
be the sorts of things you'd want your campaign rules to encourage.
More thinking to be done here. I suppose if I have some time, I'll have to
consider the idea of a campaign points system that might encourage this sort
of flavour.
TomB
With regards to flag bridges, I tried incorporating that into my old campaign
set; using crew quality rules (for admirals as well as ships),
giving an initiative bonus/penalty made the investment for each squadron
worthwhile. I costs you a B-2 or similar, but well worth +1 initiative.
For campaign movement, I think the best compromise is buying multiple FTL
systems. Each campaign turn, ships can move X distance times FTL drives. Or
even allow ships with multiple FTL to "hit and run" by moving, fighting and
then getting a strategic FTL move afterwards. Gives long range raiders the
chance to scout and run away if they stumble over a major fleet (of course if
that fleet has cruisers of their own, they can still bring the raider to
action; at the cost of separating the fleet). The 10% mass isn't a major cost
around the cruiser sized ships (one or two guns), but you could build a "long
range" SDN if you're willing to pay the tactical cost of all that mass.
Brendan 'Neath Southern Skies
> -----Original Message-----
IMPORTANT 1. Before opening any attachments, please check for viruses.
2. This e-mail (including any attachments) may contain confidential
information for the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient,
please contact the sender and delete all copies of this email.
3. Any views expressed in this e-mail are those of the sender and are
not a statement of Australian Government Policy unless otherwise stated. 4.
Electronic addresses published in this email are not conspicuous publications
and DVA does not consent to the receipt of commercial electronic messages.
5. Please go to http://www.dva.gov.au/feedback.htm#sub to unsubscribe
emails
of this type from DVA. 6. Finally, please do not remove this notice.
TomB said:
> But if you enjoy the idea of your FT sort of looking a bit like
Bear in mind that Germany and England were (and still are <g>) quite close to
each other, but their colonies were spread out. So the home fleets stayed at
home, while the ships that could be spared from the battle line were the ones
that fought over the colonies. Better model might be WW2 in the Pacific, if
there were no carriers.
> This brings to mind another aspect of the campaign game which might
When working on campaign systems I've always thought about this. You can use
cargo bays to simulate endurance. I certain 10% in bays gives you X time the
ship can remain away from port or a tender. It also makes taking replenishment
vessels in fleets important in game terms aswell since you can replenish your
ships on the go.
Makes for interesting scenarios where you send a raiding force in to buzz the
replenishment ships.
-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: "Thomas Barclay" <kaladorn@magma.ca>
> I wonder if, due to economy of scale principles, large ships like
Some of the things I've read point out the fact that larger ships are better
able to maintain their speed in rough seas (due to their mass) compared to
their smaller sisters.
> On 1/16/06, Thomas Barclay <kaladorn@magma.ca> wrote:
> Also, I don't know if it applies in the days of powered boating, but
sailboat is a *heck* of a
> lot faster across long distances than a 30' boat. I wonder if, due to
The reason this doesn't necessarily transfer well to FT is simple: Space isn't
full of water. From what I remember, the ability of larger ships to fo faster
than smaller ships, at least in the Age of Sail, had to do with drag and the
dynamics of the hull interacting with the water.
For a displacement hull, the maximum speed is roughly proportional to the
square root of the waterline length. However, structural factors also come
into play. An extremely long hull would be very difficult to make stiff enough
to survive heavy seas. Also, to achieve the maximum speed you still need to
provide enough power to push the damn thing through the sea.
Tony C.
> On 17-Jan-06, at 7:30 AM, Brian B wrote:
> On 1/16/06, Thomas Barclay <kaladorn@magma.ca> wrote:
> economy of scale
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lThis is where one
starts getting into issues with trying to equate early 20th century ship
nomenclature to out in the future. Perhaps instead of looking at it from a
20th century perspective look at what functions ship have in the FT universe
and work back form there?
IE line of battle, escort, support, carrier, independent patrol...
How much of anything has been gone over in the books regaring individual or
fleet sustainability in the long term? (Hmm time for a FT campaign book?)
Namely cruise duration between replenishments for fuel, stores, wepaons etc.
Los
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lFT has been
intentionally generic in that respect to provide the broadest possible
background for people to use. There has been no real definition of speed,
size, crew, distance units, time units, etc in the FT rules, the Fleet Books
provide some definition, but still don't list stats like endurance, range, top
FTL speed etc.
--Binhan
Los said:
> Hmm time for a FT campaign book?
Perhaps a "GZGverse campaign book"
Aye!!!!! That would be extreme coolness! Sorta like what a wolf must feel like
amongst sheep...
(whoops! bad thing about the sheep now?)
> laserlight wrote:
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lWhatever happened
to the scenario book, anyhow?
:-)
Mk
> On 1/17/06, Claus Paludan <cpaludan@tiscali.dk> wrote:
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
one book for the rules..... another for the TuffleyVerse. I like that. I bet
the TuffleyVerse book would sell well for the background and common sense in
it. But how is Earth going to escape the K'V invasion? There's only one
answer....
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lOn 1/17/06, david
> garnham <garnhamghast@fsmail.net> wrote:
There's only
> one answer....
Duh, that's easy: the UNSC! :-D
Mk